Are Graveyards & Jails Only Symbol of Honesty in Kashmir?
a) Why does Kashmiri political discourse often equate imprisonment, or even death, with honesty and purity?
b) Is it true that a leader is only trustworthy if they remain in jail or become a martyr?
Mudasir Yaqoob
The interim bail granted to Engineer Rasheed, leader of the Awami Itihad Party (AIP), by the NIA Court in Delhi, allowing him to campaign in the upcoming elections in Kashmir, has stirred a wave of reactions.
As word of his release spread, social media lit up with claims suggesting a “deal” between Rasheed and others. Such allegations may be used with a motive to cast a shadow over his return to the political fray, prompting many to wonder whether his release is a sign of political compromise or simply a procedural aspect of his legal case!
What the neitizens want to convey; Er Rasheed’s political integrity is unquestionable when he remains in jail, and now that he is bailed out, that integrity is being questioned!
Going through the social media posts and comments, the question rises;
a) Why does Kashmiri political discourse often equate imprisonment, or even death, with honesty and purity?
b) Is it true that a leader is only trustworthy if they remain in jail or become a martyr?
Kashmir’s political landscape has long been defined by its complexity. Multiple political parties vie for influence, often accusing one another of being proxies for larger forces—either external powers or even rival regional or national players.
One of the regional political rivals has suggested AIP may be working in tandem with other political forces behind the scenes.
With his release, these allegations have taken on new life. Social media users were quick to speculate that his interim bail was part of a “deal”, positioning his freedom as a trade-off for political favors. While these claims remain speculative at best, they reflect the suspicions and doubts that pervade Kashmir’s political environment.
But the most interesting element of this debate is the belief that Er. Rasheed’s time in jail somehow made him more honest in the eyes of the public. As long as he was behind bars, he was seen as an untarnished symbol of resistance—detained for his convictions, untainted by the moral ambiguities of active politics. Now that he is out on bail, questions are being raised about whether he can maintain that image of purity.
This isn’t just a commentary on Rasheed, but a broader reflection of a troubling trend in Kashmir’s political culture. There is a strong belief that a politician’s honesty and integrity are only truly affirmed if they are in jail or have sacrificed their life.
The graveyard and the prison cell have become symbols of political righteousness. For some, a leader is never more honest than when they are rendered powerless—either locked away or silenced forever.
But is this a healthy way to judge political leadership? In a democratic system, political leaders should be evaluated by their policies, their ability to lead, and how effectively they can advocate for the public’s interest—not by how long they’ve been in jail.
No democracy thrives when the barometer for a politician’s integrity is their time spent behind bars. True leadership is about navigating the complex world of governance, making tough decisions, and standing by principles even when compromise is necessary. A politician’s honesty should be judged by how they perform when they have the opportunity to act—not only when they are behind prison walls.
Engineer Rasheed’s case is a reminder of how deeply embedded the symbols of ‘martyrdom and incarceration’ are in Kashmiri politics. But it also points to the need for a broader understanding of what makes a political leader honest and effective. If honesty can only be proven through imprisonment or death, what space is left for those who actively engage in the difficult, day-to-day work of politics?
The focus should be on policies of Er. Rashid, his leadership, and his vision for the future—not the circumstances of his release.
To confine the idea of political integrity to the jail cell or the graveyard is to limit the potential for genuine political leadership. Kashmir needs leaders who can advocate for the people, whether they are on the streets, in the legislature, or, yes, even on the campaign trail.
In the end, honesty is not about where a politician is, but what they stand for and how they act. And in that light, Rasheed’s time behind bars should be one part of his story—not the only measure of his integrity.
If the idea of honesty is confined to the graveyard or the jail cell, the space for effective political leadership in Kashmir will remain tragically limited!
